The violation was there. If a police officer stopped you, your explanation may or may not have been persuasive in inducing giving you a break, but automated ticket enforcement mechanisms have no discretion. X amount over the limit and that's it. It seems unlikely to me that you'd be absolved of responsibility well after the fact by a hearing officer or judge, especially given the fundamental irrelevance of speeding to your ultimate medical outcome in this case - any layman would reasonably infer that arriving a few minutes earlier to the ER would make no practical difference to your survival or recovery from an infection, given that you were sufficiently well to drive yourself in the first instance. And, most people know that non-ambulance arrivals at ERs can end up waiting around to be seen anyway, depending how they are triaged as to the severity of their situation. You were not having a heart attack, stroke, you could breathe, weren't having a potentially fatal anaphylactic reaction, were not going into a diabetic coma, were not exsanguinating, etc - you're probably not going to get a whole lot of sympathy using a severe infection which had probably been present for some time as an excuse for why you were cited.

You made a decision to break a rule, presumably thinking that it was necessary. That is fine.

But when you made that decision, you also assumed the risk of having to deal with whatever consequences there are of breaking that rule. The ticket.

You weren't necessarily wrong to speed (not getting into the specific severity of the medical situation)
But you would be wrong to think you don't have to pay the consequences.

I would contest it especially if there's a chance of points being applied to my license and my insurance rates going up in price. But you still might lose your appeal because even ambulances have to be careful of breaking the speed limit. You don't really see ambulances speeding down the road do you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would just pay it. If you needed to get to the hospital by speeding, you should call 911 and ride in an ambulance. You honestly probably shouldn’t have been driving at all if you were in that dire of a situation.

Just wanted to say NOT TO FOLLOW THIS ADVICE if the emergency is a stroke.

You are saying that people having strokes should drive themselves to the hospital?

Time is brain. You don't want for the ambulance, you get the patient in the closest car and drive as fast as possible to the nearest hospital and deal with the tickets later.

I would think "time is brain" is a reason to call the ambulance because they can start care en route. Are there really emergencies where you should drive the patient vs. call 911? I might be biased because last time we were at the ER there was a man in line saying he thinks his wife was having a stroke. She didn't look well, and they had to wait to check in just like everyone else. I know going in an ambulance in and of itself doesn't mean you get seen first, but if the EMTs think it could be a stroke, that seems more likely than when it's coming from the spouse.

My husband had a heart attack and we were told to always call the ambulance because they can start care en route and communicate with the ER.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this in DC? DH got a speeding ticket on his way to the hospital after I had just given birth. He contested it and said he was in a hurry to bring our toddler to the hospital to see the new baby and they forgave the ticket. This was many years ago and it was a write-in process as opposed to appearing in person, so it was worth a shot!

Why did your DH have to speed with your toddler in the car.

Seriously - there was nothing urgent whatsoever about that trip.

The hearing officer who let this speeding driver off the hook should be fired.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would just pay it. If you needed to get to the hospital by speeding, you should call 911 and ride in an ambulance. You honestly probably shouldn’t have been driving at all if you were in that dire of a situation.

Just wanted to say NOT TO FOLLOW THIS ADVICE if the emergency is a stroke.

You are saying that people having strokes should drive themselves to the hospital?

Time is brain. You don't want for the ambulance, you get the patient in the closest car and drive as fast as possible to the nearest hospital and deal with the tickets later.

Okay, but the person HAVING the stroke should not drive themselves to the hospital.

Agreed. The PP’s advice makes no sense. My mom could not drive herself after her stroke. She was barely able to call my brother, much less go look for a ride. My brother called 911 and headed to her house. I’m sure he did speed because mom was alone.

Anonymous wrote:Is this in DC? DH got a speeding ticket on his way to the hospital after I had just given birth. He contested it and said he was in a hurry to bring our toddler to the hospital to see the new baby and they forgave the ticket. This was many years ago and it was a write-in process as opposed to appearing in person, so it was worth a shot!

Why did your DH have to speed with your toddler in the car.

Were you speeding? You're guilty. Do the right thing

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would just pay it. If you needed to get to the hospital by speeding, you should call 911 and ride in an ambulance. You honestly probably shouldn’t have been driving at all if you were in that dire of a situation.

The ambulance ride can cost an arm and a leg, depending on your insurance, PP. This is why OP drove herself, just like the majority of patients in the US who don't have adequate insurance in the face of astronomical medical costs.

If you're feeling well enough to contest it, sure, OP. Come armed with hospital discharge papers, point out the date, time and diagnosis. It might work, especially if this is your first ticket in a long time.

Where around here are people charged for ambulance rides? Not in MoCo. I just assume other jurisdictions had similar policies

That's likely only if you're a resident of that county. Visitors pay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would just pay it. If you needed to get to the hospital by speeding, you should call 911 and ride in an ambulance. You honestly probably shouldn’t have been driving at all if you were in that dire of a situation.

The ambulance ride can cost an arm and a leg, depending on your insurance, PP. This is why OP drove herself, just like the majority of patients in the US who don't have adequate insurance in the face of astronomical medical costs.

If you're feeling well enough to contest it, sure, OP. Come armed with hospital discharge papers, point out the date, time and diagnosis. It might work, especially if this is your first ticket in a long time.

Where around here are people charged for ambulance rides? Not in MoCo. I just assume other jurisdictions had similar policies

Anonymous wrote:I got a ticket from a speed camera for going 41 in a 30 mph zone. I was driving myself to the ER with a severe infection (I had no other transportation options that I could afford).

Should I bother to contest the ticket? Is this something the examiner might see as justifying some grace?

I would just pay it.

How to know if someone is having a stroke:
F - face drooping
A - arm weakness
S - speech difficulty/slurring words
T - time to call 911

Source: https://www.stroke.org/en/about-stroke/stroke-symptoms

I would

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would just pay it. If you needed to get to the hospital by speeding, you should call 911 and ride in an ambulance. You honestly probably shouldn’t have been driving at all if you were in that dire of a situation.

The ambulance ride can cost an arm and a leg, depending on your insurance, PP. This is why OP drove herself, just like the majority of patients in the US who don't have adequate insurance in the face of astronomical medical costs.

If you're feeling well enough to contest it, sure, OP. Come armed with hospital discharge papers, point out the date, time and diagnosis. It might work, especially if this is your first ticket in a long time.

This is really dumb.

If she’s well enough to drive herself to the hospital, she’s well enough to drive the speed limit. If you’re so sick you need to get to the hospital faster than safe driving allows, you shouldn’t be driving.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would just pay it. If you needed to get to the hospital by speeding, you should call 911 and ride in an ambulance. You honestly probably shouldn’t have been driving at all if you were in that dire of a situation.

Just wanted to say NOT TO FOLLOW THIS ADVICE if the emergency is a stroke.

You are saying that people having strokes should drive themselves to the hospital?

Time is brain. You don't want for the ambulance, you get the patient in the closest car and drive as fast as possible to the nearest hospital and deal with the tickets later.

I would think "time is brain" is a reason to call the ambulance because they can start care en route. Are there really emergencies where you should drive the patient vs. call 911? I might be biased because last time we were at the ER there was a man in line saying he thinks his wife was having a stroke. She didn't look well, and they had to wait to check in just like everyone else. I know going in an ambulance in and of itself doesn't mean you get seen first, but if the EMTs think it could be a stroke, that seems more likely than when it's coming from the spouse.